FAO No.3 of 1998

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No.3 of 1998

Date of Decision. 05.08.2010

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., having its regional office at Sector

8, Chandigarh through Sh.R.C. Bansal, Asstt. Manager duly

constituted attorney

......Appellant

Versus

Pala Singh son of Chajju Singh and others

......Respondents

2.

FAO No.4 of 1998

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., having its regional office at Sector

8, Chandigarh through Sh.R.C. Bansal, Asstt. Manager duly

constituted attorney

......Appellant

Versus

Chhaju Singh son of Mushi Singh and others

......Respondents

3.

FAO No.5 of 1998

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., having its regional office at Sector

8, Chandigarh through Sh.R.C. Bansal, Asstt. Manager duly

constituted attorney

......Appellant

Versus

Gurdev Kaur wife of Mukand Singh and others

......Respondents

Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate

for the appellant.

None for the respondents.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the

judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

-.-

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

1.

The insurance company is in appeal pleading for exclusion

of liability on the ground that the licence is proved to be fake but

still the owner has been provided with full indemnity. According to

the insurer, there had been a deliberate breach on the part of the

FAO No.3 of 1998

-2-

owner/insured in entrusting the vehicle to a person, who did not

have a valid driving licence. Although the insurer had the benefit of

securing a report of local commissioner that the driving licence was

not genuine, the owner himself had given evidence before the

Tribunal to the effect that he had verified the licence of the driver.

There was a further evidence that the driver had been serving him

for more than 2 years but after the accident, he had left the service.

He had also given evidence to the effect that he saw the licence

before appointing him and it may have appeared that the licence

had been issued by licensing authority, Guwahati. The belief of the

owner-insured that the licence produced by the driver was genuine is

good enough to infer that the insured had not committed any

deliberate breach of the terms of the policy. The Tribunal has

observed that he had not taken steps to verify the licence from

licensing authority, Guwahati or the DTO office at Hoshiarpur. Such

a verification is not merely unnatural but against the grain of normal

human conduct. The Tribunal has apportioned the liability between

the insurer and the owner as 75:25. The insurance company must

have been made to pay the entire amount and protected the

insured's right to be fully indemnified.

2.

All the three appeals filed by the insurance company are

dismissed but still the awards are moeified to make the insurer fully

liable for the claims.

(K. KANNAN)

JUDGE

August 05, 2010

Pankaj*